Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <41873B74.5020201@soociety.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:47:00 +0800
From: pguillard <pguillard@soociety.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040913)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: CForms : fd:case for union widget ?
References: <4185B473.50302@soociety.com> <4185F1C1.2070305@apache.org>
 <4186B663.4000702@gmx.de> <20041102043608.GC21226@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20041102043608.GC21226@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks to all!

Tim Larson wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 11:19:15PM +0100, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>  
>
>>On 01.11.2004 09:20, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>I'd like to know if a fd:case for the union widget is still planned to 
>>>>give more flexibility than the fd:struct or if there is another way to 
>>>>give a matching expression to the fd:struct.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>There were discussions about this [1] which unfortunately have stalled. 
>>>IIRC, using an expression for cases was considered to bring too much 
>>>overhead, as it expressions would need to be computed for each request. 
>>>Additional flexibility can be achieved though by having the union's case 
>>>widget be an output whose value is computed, eventually reacting to 
>>>change to other widget values.
>>>      
>>>
>>When I talked the last time with Tim about it (yes I think it was just 
>>Time and me) we agreed that the missing fd:case causes just troubles. It 
>>was not about an additional expression, but about needing fd:struct, 
>>which results in needing ft:struct and fb:struct - where you need 
>>ft:case and fb:case anyway. Furthermore the inconsequence is just 
>>irritating.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes there are two issues here, parallel structure between the binding,
>model, and template (binding and template use *:case, model does not,)
>and allowing cases to specify their own conditions rather than being
>simple cases like in a switch statement.
>
>For the first issue (parallel structure), we should add fd:case to the
>form model for consistency's sake, to simplify learning the union/
>choose concept.
>
>As for the second issue (conditions on cases), it should be an option.
>This way you can have the choice of fast switch-like behaviour versus
>slower if...elseif...elseif...else behaviour depending on your needs.
>
>--Tim Larson
>
>
>  
>